guy keren wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Omer Efraim wrote:
>
> yes, but the way the pop server works, it still performs these files
> copies, no matter if the user eventually downloads their email or not (at
> least qpopper used to make a file copy operation immediatly when the
> user's mail client sent the user's password, and before returning a reply.
> this caused clients to wrongly report of a 'wrong password' on timing out,
> rather then reporting on a 'timeout' - that's what happened with pegasus
> mail back in 95 or so...
qmail-pop3d doesn't perform any file copying.
Why does qpopper make a copy anyhow, in order to avoid
corrupt mailfiles, in order to allow delivery while
checking for mail, or...?
>
> you need to check out how to avoid any kind of file copying operations if
> you want an fork() savings to make any sense... the POP protocol is
> useless in making such kinds of checks, unless it gets extended in some
> manner (e.g. by having a 'LAST_UPDATE command to notify the mail client
> when was the user's incoming mailbox last modified. however, this won't
> help much, unless _no_ file copy operations are performed if there is no
> new mail waiting for the user, relative to the specific client checking
> for mail - the user may be reading their email from different
> computers...).
>
> now - how do you fix this up? without fixing this up - your "less forking"
> system won't be any better then the current system...
Like I said, I see no reason to make a copy of the file
if I'm using Maildirs. And anyhow, most users have the mail removed
from the server after it is downloaded, so the 'check-for-new-mail'
operation is relatively painless. Just an empty LIST.
>
> > Well, I agree - but this is a whole other symphony and requires much more
> > work, and it works on a much larger scale.I myself download mail tunneled
> > through ssh so it's compressed anyhow, but I guess it would be nice to
> > have clients supporting it out of the box.
>
> you're looking for large scale solutions - your ssh tunneling solution is
> not large scale at all.
I never said it is. Neither is it a good solution for the non technically
savvy user. But then again, getting clients to support
a new standard is a very difficult task.
>
> > Single file. The reasoning
> > behind Maildirs was not really performance but rather robustness.
>
> this does not say it cannot be used for gaining in performance as well...
I didn't say that either :)
Obviously, you get some great benefits. I remember qpopper choking
on a P120/64MB RAM when a user with a 20MB maildrop tried to retrieve
mail (it throttled the whole machine for some time).
>
> guy
>
> "For world domination - press 1,
> or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy
1
0000111110000111
You system is defective, maybe get Comverse to
work on it.
--
/--------------- Omer Efraim, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------\
[ Microsoft Vaccine 2000 is configuring your immune system. This may ]
[ take a few minutes. If your body stops responding for a long time and ]
[ there is no brain activity please die. Setup will continue after you ]
[ are reborn. ]
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
- Quoting Buzh, asr
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
